Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"

Abdussalam Baryun <> Wed, 28 November 2012 18:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9745621F846A for <>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:31:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J0dXlEYRXjmM for <>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:31:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2BD221F8469 for <>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:31:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id fw7so13175680vcb.31 for <>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:31:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Ha80kMwTlQVBTN1Qq/rhDMIiFXcnPTLqEwc2y6/zH7w=; b=Iyyi66lP2ntE9t6lbaE2cR3s4XGQK2c5gmSoz7getN6jX2F17mO0QXTidxv7NxmHDC UMzrZ29aZFF3OWFQkdgUYVr/8eMmJxvcCQVRyCzub9eGuiErLkuW7KRGHjqoS/D6C9Xx igslaLJZom+PM1rq5TT1nXC3FT1LB7g4em0cR+r+7avLS5ZxyCSPDR7hTOL7g+FU32wP z67otMX5+WrY7l8rmM69dnukjkKbvC+lG0LRPUJcdsGOXs8ODJFRBo4sx005buBe3Hc/ wIJhXzoeWR+e1xZxPQTv133wkyGHcAYzh5oiXBC44Wb0vTsotUPiMb1CU55lnQQF1V/O nQLA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id c8mr25756070vdv.20.1354127460905; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:31:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:31:00 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:31:00 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"
From: Abdussalam Baryun <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec50162bd49b35704cf925ecd"
Cc: ietf <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:31:02 -0000

Hi Barry,

I thank you to open this discussion. I tried to open this discussion before
on the list but was ignored, however, seeing your input made me think that
there is importance to the subject. IMO I prefer the discussion list,
because we all integrate and we all are present in its domain. In F2F
meeting their is a certain time to meet and limited discussions and limited
input. Please note that most of the input of IETF is done on the list not
within F2F meetings. However, still we need F2F meetings to
insure/encourage the directions of work/discussions.

WG F2F meetings Main Purpose: Guidance, Directions, Sense Decisions,
Interact with other WGs, Exchanging ideas and questions, Marketing,
interaction with other organisations, etc.

WG Discussion List Participations Purpose: announcements, feedbacks, The
documented Work flow Processings, Making WG decisions, checking concensus,
questions and answers, editing work/drafts, arguments, etc.

I thought this is already in the IETF procedure that we are following, so
maybe the question is are we following best practices or we just are
following some people. I think so far that participants are sometimes
following and sometimes not, which is disapointment (some one asked me once
on the list why I was disapointed this is one reason).